Synergies between different types of agricultural technologies: insights from the Kenyan small farm sector Priscilla Wainaina, Songporne Tongruksawattana, Matin Qaim
Invited paper presented at the 5th International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Copyright 2016 by [authors]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies.
Synergies between different types of agricultural technologies: insights from the Kenyan small farm sector Priscilla Wainaina1, Songporne Tongruksawattana2, Matin Qaim3
1
Corresponding author. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development; GeorgAugust-University of Goettingen; Platz der Goettinger Sieben 5; 37073 Goettingen, Germany. Tel: +49 551 39 4445; fax: +49 551 39 4823. Email address
[email protected]
2
Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP) ICIPE - Duduville Campus, P.O. Box 30772-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel. +254 (20) 863 2687. Email address
[email protected]
3
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development; Georg-August-University of Goettingen; Platz der Goettinger Sieben 5; 37073 Goettingen; Germany. Tel:+49 551 39 4806; fax: +49 551 39 4823. Email address
[email protected]
Abstract Global demand for food and farm commodities continues to grow, while land and other natural resources are becoming increasingly scarce. Sustainable intensification is often seen as a new paradigm for increasing agricultural productivity in a socially and environmentally responsible way. Sustainable intensification requires a broad portfolio of technologies, including improved seeds, fertilizers, and various natural resource management (NRM) practices. However, possible synergies between different types of technologies are not yet sufficiently understood. Here, we address this knowledge gap. Using representative data from small farms in Kenya and a propensity score matching approach, we analyze income effects of various technologies and technology combinations. When adopted alone, some innovations produce positive effects, while others do not. Effects of certain technology combinations are larger. The largest income gains 15
occur when improved seeds are adopted together with organic manure and zero tillage practices. This points at important synergies between input-intensive and NRM technologies. Yet, the number of farmers that have adopted such promising technology combinations is relatively small, implying that synergies are not yet fully exploited. More impact studies that explicitly account for possible synergies can add to the knowledge that is needed for designing and promoting technology combinations suitable for particular contexts.
Keywords: Agricultural technology; Sustainable intensification; Economic impact; Maize farming; Sub-Saharan Africa
1. Introduction Global demand for food and farm commodities continues to grow, while land and other natural resources required for agricultural production are becoming increasingly scarce (Godfray et al., 2010; Hertel, 2015). In Sub-Saharan Africa, population growth is particularly strong and will likely remain so over the coming decades. Sub-Saharan Africa is also the region with the highest rates of poverty and undernutrition, and the lowest rates of productivity growth in agriculture. Many of the poor and undernourished people live in rural areas and depend on smallholder agriculture as a source of income and employment. To reduce poverty and increase food security in Sub-Saharan Africa will require substantial productivity and income growth in the small farm sector (Foresight, 2011). There is an urgent need for sustainable agricultural intensification, defined as producing more from the same area of land while reducing negative environmental impacts and increasing contributions to environmental services (Godfray et al., 2010; Pretty, 2011). The development and use of improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation has contributed to large productivity gains in Asia and Latin America over the last few decades. These developments became widely known as the green revolution (Evenson and Gollin, 2003). In Africa, these input-intensive technologies have not been adopted to the same extent, due to various constraints. Wider use of improved seeds and agrochemicals will have an important role to play for increasing and stabilizing yields in the African small farm sector. However, in addition to the use of external inputs sustainable intensification will also require improved agronomy to conserve natural resources. Natural resource management (NRM) technologies build on integrated agronomic principles and include practices such as conservation tillage, intercropping, terracing of sloped land, and use of locally available organic inputs. NRM technologies can reduce farmers’ reliance on external inputs and thus reduce the environmental footprint of agricultural production (Altieri, 2002; Hobbs et al., 2008). NRM practices can also help to reduce resource degradation and make farming more resilient to varying climatic shocks (Sanchez, 2002; Di Falco and Veronesi, 2013). 15
While in the wider public debate, input-intensive technologies and NRM practices are often depicted as two conflicting approaches (Greenpeace Africa, 2015), recent evidence shows that farmers sometimes adopt combinations of both types of technologies (Wainaina et al., 2014; Kassie et al., 2015a). Synergistic relationships may contribute positively to agricultural production and incomes. For instance, Sanchez (2002) argued that green revolution varieties could have been more successful in Africa if they had been adopted together with improved soil management practices. While this is plausible, there is little concrete evidence about synergistic relationships in smallholder environments. This is mainly due to the fact that available impact studies primarily focus on single technologies or compare effects of similar types of technologies. For instance, recent studies have analyzed productivity and income effects of improved seeds, sometimes in combination with chemical inputs (Becerril and Abdulai, 2010; Asfaw et al., 2012; Kabunga et al., 2014; Mathenge et al., 2014; Shiferaw et al., 2014). Other studies have looked at the impact of organic manure, conservation agriculture, and related soil and water management practices (Pender and Gebremedhin, 2007; Kassie et al., 2010; Wollni et al., 2011; Kassie et al., 2015b). We are not aware of studies that have explicitly analyzed the impacts of adopting combinations of input-intensive and NRM technologies. We address this research gap, using representative survey data from maize farmers in Kenya. In particular, we analyze and compare the impacts of different types of technologies – such as improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, organic manure, zero tillage, and crop residue management – as well as various technology combinations on farm household income. Household income is chosen as a comprehensive welfare measure, as looking at crop yields alone may be misleading. A propensity score matching approach is used to reduce problems of selection bias. As the analysis builds on data collected in one single year and the number of adopters for certain technology combinations is relatively small, our intention is not to provide conclusive evidence about impacts and synergies. Rather, we want to highlight that important synergistic relationships exist, which should be accounted for more explicitly in future technology adoption and impact studies. The rest of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the survey data and the technologies considered in the impact analysis, while section 3 introduces the statistical methods. Results are presented and discussed in section 4. Section 5 concludes. 2. Data and technologies considered 2.1. Farm survey A representative survey of maize-producing farm households was conducted in Kenya, covering all of the country’s six agroecological zones (AEZs) as defined by Hassan (1998). Maize is the main staple food crop in Kenya and is produced by almost all farm households for home consumption; surplus quantities are sold in local markets. To select households, we used a multi-stage random sampling technique, building on official statistics and census data (KNBS, 2010). In each AEZ, we randomly selected sub-locations (Kenya’s smallest administrative units). The appropriate number of sub-locations was determined proportional to the maize area in each 15
AEZ. In total, 120 sub-locations were sampled. In each sub-location, 12 households were randomly selected, except for the coastal lowlands where only six households were selected per sub-location due to budgetary constraints. The total sample includes 1344 farm household observations. Table 1 shows a few general characteristics of the six AEZ and the regional distribution of the sampled households.
Table 1: Agroecological zones in Kenya and regional distribution of sampled households Highland tropics 1600-2900
Moist transitional 1200-2000
Moist midaltitude 1100-1500
Dry transitional 1100-1700
Dry midaltitude 700-1400
Lowland tropics 1800
1000-1800
800-1200
